PeakOil is You
Energy Per Capita in the News
Re: Energy Per Capita in the News
by outcast » Mon 26 Jan 2009, 05:01:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')is measure of energy per capita is more a proxy than an absolute measure. What he was driving at in his papers is that the energy required for maintenance will exceed available energy. In particular, oil, re: gasoline and diesel. Besides, this was what I said, that the measure would be more appropriate if it were limited to industrialized countries. I fail to see how this invalidates his argument.
The way it was presented did not make it appear like it was intended as a proxy measure. The graphs Brat provided look pretty absolute to me. He didn't include it because, if we limit it to industrial populations only, the trend is up not flat (the vast majority of increases in energy have been used in industrial countries while removing the non-industrial "dead weight" population from the denominator makes a bigger average), which directly contradicts his thesis (that energy per capita will start declining soon heralding the end of the industrial civilization).
He thesis also assumes there will be no major changes in how we get our energy. I think France has proven that you can build large numbers of nuclear reactors fairly quickly, if it high enough on the government's priorities. After this latest gas row in Russia, I can seriously see many European leaders giving a serious rethink to nuclear. Of course there will be stupid people and fear mongers that will fight it, but if it really needs to get done it will get done.
Y2K is real. Y2K is going to rock our world.
-Kunstler
Don't respond, I'll just ignore it.
-MonteQuest
-Kunstler
Don't respond, I'll just ignore it.
-MonteQuest
-
outcast - Tar Sands
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Energy Per Capita in the News
by culicomorpha » Tue 27 Jan 2009, 01:24:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')is measure of energy per capita is more a proxy than an absolute measure. What he was driving at in his papers is that the energy required for maintenance will exceed available energy. In particular, oil, re: gasoline and diesel. Besides, this was what I said, that the measure would be more appropriate if it were limited to industrialized countries. I fail to see how this invalidates his argument.
The way it was presented did not make it appear like it was intended as a proxy measure. The graphs Brat provided look pretty absolute to me. He didn't include it because, if we limit it to industrial populations only, the trend is up not flat (the vast majority of increases in energy have been used in industrial countries while removing the non-industrial "dead weight" population from the denominator makes a bigger average), which directly contradicts his thesis (that energy per capita will start declining soon heralding the end of the industrial civilization).
He thesis also assumes there will be no major changes in how we get our energy. I think France has proven that you can build large numbers of nuclear reactors fairly quickly, if it high enough on the government's priorities. After this latest gas row in Russia, I can seriously see many European leaders giving a serious rethink to nuclear. Of course there will be stupid people and fear mongers that will fight it, but if it really needs to get done it will get done.
Well, one can make all sorts of assumptions about the size of the denominator, but the fact of the matter is that the total available energy from FFs is declining. That is, total available energy is declining, resulting in a decrease in the numerator. Ultimately, as the numerator approaches zero, the electric grid goes down, period. The only reason that the numerator is not declining currently in the US and in Europe is because the richer countries can afford more oil. This is expected, but it can't last forever. At some point, even the richer countries will see declines in available energy derived from oil. When that happens, the energy available for maintenance will decline. And if supplies get cut off (for whatever reason) the industrial countries are in a world of trouble.
As for nuclear being a "solution," I think this is little less than a pipe dream. In the US, the nuclear solution is not ony impractical physically, but is politically problematic. Transportation in the US is utterly dependent on oil. Nuclear will not alleviate these problems. The US lacks the infrastructure necessary to turn electricity into transportation, and I might add, so is France.
I guess the thing I find most perplexing about your response is that if you are here, you are well aware that oil production has reached a peak. Since transportation is critically reliant on oil, how can you argue that it will be possible to maintain the electrical grid with declining supplies of oil? You don't really mean to argue that electricity can be (in a practical sense) substituted for oil, do you?
-
culicomorpha - Lignite
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Sat 03 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: cascadia
Re: Energy Per Capita in the News
by davep » Tue 27 Jan 2009, 04:51:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', ' ')The US lacks the infrastructure necessary to turn electricity into transportation, and I might add, so is France.
What about the ever-expanding network of high-speed electrified trains in France?
What we think, we become.
-
davep - Senior Moderator
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe